DBMM Forum
General Category => Rules Questions => Topic started by: arvnranger on June 05, 2009, 04:18:52 AM
-
[it] A group of 6 Bg(F), 3 elements wide, 2 deep turns 90? into column.
(http://www.accessdata.co.nz/images/Baggage.jpg)
Does this diagram display correctly the before and after positions of the group? I'm uncertain regarding the "not further to the rear" phrase on P29, para 1, BP 2 and the attendant issues for groups deeper than 1 element width performing this manoeuvre.
Cheers,
Ivan.
-
Hi Ivan
That question looks very familiar!! :)
I presume the question boils down to the last elements of the new column : is that legal?
Given the moves are not measured individually, there doesn't seem to be anything that prevents the two elements popping out the back of the new column. Unless I'm missing something?
Let's assume for the moment the final position of the last 2 elements is not legal, are there any other options available to the last 2 elements?
From the rules on p29:
Until a contracting group is entirely in column, each of its elements must end facing the same direction as and in both edge and corner-to-corner contact with another element of the original group.
This sentence would suggest that even if the position of the last 2 elements is not correct, that they are actually facing the correct way, but just in the wrong position. And maybe they should line up on the right flank of the new column (unsupportable - see below).
However, this rule:
Elements of the group not yet in the column can move only sideways
would suggest the 2 end elements could not simply line up on the flank of the column, given they could only slide sideways - which if they did then they are no longer part of the group. How then do the last 2 elements get into the group?
Is there an option for a 'kinked' column and the 2 left-most elements of the group simply stay where they are?
Or is the final position actually ok? Interesting question........
Cheers
Andrew
-
I would say that the las two elements cannot be included into the column, but I can't find any rules to support it :-\
-
For some reason I can't see the picture, but if I understand the question correctly then I see no reason why the group could not end in a kinked column.
^^^
^^^
becomes
>>>>
^<
or
>>>>
^
^
-
Not bad considering you couldn't see the picture - you even had your elements facing in the correct direction!
I'm not sure the elements can end in this position:
>>>>
^<
because of the rule I quoted earlier regarding sliding sideways.
Whereas I think your final image of a kinked column:
>>>>
^
^
can be supported by the rules. Equally I can't see anything preventing the final position per the image you can't see, of:
>>>>>>
where the 2 left-most elements are to the left of the original group.
Andrew
-
Not bad considering you couldn't see the picture - you even had your elements facing in the correct direction!
I'm not sure the elements can end in this position:
>>>>
^<
because of the rule I quoted earlier regarding sliding sideways.
This is a column with two kinks. As all elements have joined the column, the restriction to moving sideways does not apply.
I agree with you on >>>>>>. No element is behind the original position of its rear edge. Mind you, there are other interpretations of "No element can end further to the rear than it started". If you interpret it as distance behind the front edge of the lead element in its final position then it would not be allowed.
-
Hi
we had exactly the same same question this weekend at an Event in Bad Homburg, Germany.
P29 "No element can end further to its rear than it started".
Which direction is "to the rear"?
To the rear of the elements final position or to the rear of the elements starting position?
In this case, the two directions are at 90 degrees (perpendicular) to each other.
I would say the move is illegal, but should be clarified.
The kinked column seems ok to me, but if you make it 8 blades instead of 6, then I think this is no longer an option. The blades would have to advance straight ahead. ("until a contracting group...of the original group")
neil
-
From the rules on p29:
Until a contracting group is entirely in column, each of its elements must end facing the same direction as and in both edge and corner-to-corner contact with another element of the original group.
<snip>
Elements of the group not yet in the column can move only sideways
<snip>
[it] From p28 "Group Moves":
A group is defined as a number of contiguous elements of the same command which, except as made necessary
by wheeling or turning a column or passing through a gateway, are facing in the same direction with each in both
edge and corner-to-corner contact with another of the group's elements.
Although I'm suspicious of the permissibility of *forming* a kinked column (vis-a-vis the discontinuity originating from a march or tactical move by a group already in column) the permission might be implicit above inasmuch as the "not further to rear" constraint on p29 gives rise to the necessity referred above. (?)
Cheers,
Ivan.
-
I've always played it as the original example, and "further to the rear than it started" can only mean to the initial rear as there is no other rear at the start.
The prohibbits this:
^^^^
^^^^
Becomes:
^
^
^
^---< where this was the intial rear rank
^
^
So this prohibition is mostly on elements with shorter moves, stopping them moving instantly into a single element wide column that is much deeper than the original formation and extends past it's original rear rank.
-
Hi
so if I have 32 warband, 4 deep and 8 wide, can I turn them 90 degrees into a column 32 elements deep?
See attachment.
neil
-
Hi
so if I have 32 warband, 4 deep and 8 wide, can I turn them 90 degrees into a column 32 elements deep?
neil
Yes, although it costs 3 pips. Then 2 to deploy out of the column when you want to do that.
-
Hi
so if I have 32 warband, 4 deep and 8 wide, can I turn them 90 degrees into a column 32 elements deep?
neil
Yes, although it costs 3 pips. Then 2 to deploy out of the column when you want to do that.
:-[ Sorry Lawrence, why does it cost 3 pips ?
William
-
Hi
and then it is also possible to turn a block of warband 2 wide and 16 deep 90 degees into a column?
Have also not understood the 3 Pips. I reckon it?s only two.
See attached JPG.
neil
-
Costing 2 or 3 PIPs depends on the interpretation of "Both a group's front corners move less than maximum distance...".
Andrew
-
Costing 2 or 3 PIPs depends on the interpretation of "Both a group's front corners move less than maximum distance...".
Andrew
Oooerr, now I very worried, pass the popcorn this could go on for a while.
William ;)
-
Costing 2 or 3 PIPs depends on the interpretation of "Both a group's front corners move less than maximum distance...".
Andrew
;) Took a bit of time to consider this, is the starting element wheeling and IIRC the inner part of the wheel is considered as moving at the same speed as the outer?
:-[ Confusing myself again
William
-
Hi William
There are so many ways to measure group moves and whether or not either corner (of the initial or final position) moves full distance is down to interpretation. I'm not offering an opinion on this, but Lawrence stated it cost 3 PIPs and the only avenue of interpretation that I can see, rightly or wrongly, is the rule I quoted. Unless I'm missing what Lawrence intended.......
Cheers
Andrew
-
Hi William
There are so many ways to measure group moves and whether or not either corner (of the initial or final position) moves full distance is down to interpretation. I'm not offering an opinion on this, but Lawrence stated it cost 3 PIPs and the only avenue of interpretation that I can see, rightly or wrongly, is the rule I quoted. Unless I'm missing what Lawrence intended.......
Cheers
Andrew
We shall have to wait, we bated breath. ;)
William
-
I thought Phil had ruled on this on the Yahoo site?
From my remembrance of this I believe that you move the first element, which becomes the head of the column, the maximum distance it can move, the other elements then falling in behind making their maximum move distance. Any element that cannot fall behind because the distance is too great then is moved sideways and placed by the side of the column. The next bound is the tricky one as if the column remains in a column when it moves, the elements on the side then either move sidewards and forwards as the column advances, probably leading to the rear most elements not moving, or waiting until the end of the column allows them to tag on behind.
Also Phil said that as long as the head of the column moves the full distance it can, including any wheels etc, then that counts for the 'both corners moving full distance' ruling.
-
Hi
not quite...
P29, second bullet:
"
The future front element of the column...pivots 90 degrees... It moves up to the full tactical distance of the slowest element.... The other elements move without measuring individually.... No element can end further to the rear than it started. Until...entirely in column, each of its elements must end facing the same direction and in... contact with...the group. Elements of a group not yet in the column can only move sideways.
"
I do not think the manouvres I listed above are legal (Warband 8 x 4 or 2 x 16 turning 90 degrees to create a 1 x 32 column) but would like to hear other opinions about why these turns should be (il)legal.
neil
-
@ VV : do you have a link to a post?
@ Neil : why do you think they are illegal? I can see you are pushing the original example to the extreme, but I can't see any rules that state this cannot happen.
-
"@ Neil : why do you think they are illegal? I can see you are pushing the original example to the extreme, but I can't see any rules that state this cannot happen."
Hi
they look "silly" and "wrong" on the table.
I had understood the point about elements not being allowed to end their move further to the rear as being the limiting factor.
If I read it as "to their final rear" and not "to their initial rear", such "ridiculous" moves become impossible.
I could well imagine using such moves, especially for warband.
It becomes possible to deploy in a two wide group facing the opponent, pay two PIPs to end facing left in a column, then a further 2 Pips to become a wide group facing the enemy. This easily beats expanding by columns. It would also impossible to do if the inital deployment was only one element wide. In this case there would simply be a kinked column.
neil
-
Way back in the early days of DBMM development Phil stated that turning into line from column was how he thought the ancients mostly did it.
So yes it is preferable to expanding from column, and is intended to be.
Just make sire you're far enough away from enemy to do it in march moves and you have enough PIPs....
Phil has commetned on the front corners issue in:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/49468
there was discussion about the issue on the list late last year - Phil didn't answer that at the time & IMO the message above covers it.
-
Hi
have no problem with turning lines into column....
A Column of 24 warband (O) is 15 * 24 = 360mm = 720 p long.
It moves 160p /turn.
To turn from column to line it pays 2 Pips to turn the head of the column, moves 4 times straight ahead and then makes another 90 degree turn for 2 Pips.
Spreading this over a few moves, the least number of Pips needed is 8.
Fair enough.
However.
A group of 24 warband (O) two elements wide and twelve deep seems to be able to beam itself 90 degrees to the left as shown in the attached diagram and then takes another 90 degree turn for 2 Pips.
All done in one turn for only 4 Pips.
I do not like this method of turning at all.
There should be some limitation on it.
neil
-
AFAIK you cannot do that because "elements of the group not yet in the column can only move sideways" (last sentence of the bullet point).
-
Neil's extreme example is a logical extension of the original question of turning a 2x3 group of fast baggage elements into a column. So does the original question still stand unanswered? Surely a group more than one elements wide can turn 90 into a column - I suppose the question is how is this executed in such a way that all elements are still a contiguous group given a variety of base sizes and move distances......
-
Hi
I know I?m harping on, but I do think that "no element may end further to the rear" is a sensible limiting factor which on the board gives reasonable results.
But you have to read it as "to their final rear" and not "to their initial rear".
neil
-
Greetings
I take the words on Pg28 (1st para 'Group Moves) to define a column as one element wide only. These precludes a two element wide 'column like' group from using the rules on page 29, unless they do so as two seperate columns.
I think the column rules have been written for a column going straight ahead, and the wording used fails to convey its meaning when it moves off at a 90deg angle. I think that any element that can't join the column should turn 90deg then only move sideways.
So, Ivan, my opinion is that your last two elements should stay beside your column until next turn. Unfortanately I haven't been able to get it into words yet and don't seem to have drawing options.
Will try again tomorrow.
Cheers
Wayne
-
Hi
a block 2 elements wide is definitely not a column, which, as you say, has to be one element wide.
P29. top:
A ... group...move can be used...to...
...turn 90 degrees into a column.....
Unfortunately there seems to be no limitation on how deep the group is, unless you take up my argument for elements not ending further to their rear, meaning to the rear of the final position, not to the rear of the initial position.
neil
-
Hi Wayne
Long time no see!
The original question arose in a game between Ivan and myself and my initial reaction was to first turn the elements who didn't make it into the column 90 degrees and, as you mentioned, then slide sideways. However we took the "only" part of the rule as saying they couldn't turn 90 if not in the column (ie they can only slide sideways). Whilst it is an elegant solution that "looks right" I don't think the rules support this method. Maybe it should be pre-agreed with your opponent before any dice are rolled......like a few other things.
Andrew
-
Neil's extreme example is a logical extension of the original question of turning a 2x3 group of fast baggage elements into a column. So does the original question still stand unanswered? Surely a group more than one elements wide can turn 90 into a column - I suppose the question is how is this executed in such a way that all elements are still a contiguous group given a variety of base sizes and move distances......
Yes a group wider than 1 element can turn into a column - but go back to the procedure for doing so....
The front element moves forward or pivots to the direction faced, and then moves it's full move.
Now other elements move - the closest ones fill in "behind the column"....in this case clearly they fill into the "new" column.
Ther are 2 restrictions:
1/ elements of a group that contracts frontage must end up all facing the same way as the ORIGINAL GROUP until all of them are in the column, and
2/ elements not yet in the column CAN ONLY MOVE SIDEWAYS.
#2 seesm to be being forgotten by everyone - you cannot move forwards to get into the column - you can only move sideways. This is a massive restriction!
This means that in the case above th eelements in the right hand side of hte new group cannot move sorwards to ente4r hte column and face the flank.\
It also means that very deep formations are limited to forming a column that goes straight ahead if they are trying to put all their elements into the 1 column - wheeling to the flank seriously limits the number of elements that can meet condition #1 (esp for slow moving troop types) - that all elements have to end up facing the same way as the original group until all the elements are in the column.
-
<snip>
Ther are 2 restrictions:
1/ elements of a group that contracts frontage must end up all facing the same way as the ORIGINAL GROUP until all of them are in the column, and
2/ elements not yet in the column CAN ONLY MOVE SIDEWAYS.
#2 seesm to be being forgotten by everyone - you cannot move forwards to get into the column - you can only move sideways. This is a massive restriction!
This means that in the case above th eelements in the right hand side of hte new group cannot move sorwards to ente4r hte column and face the flank.\
[it] If this rule was applied as you have described then a group wider than 1 element would never be able to turn into column. These constraints apply, as you have reproduced above, only to elements not *in the column* (which I will further define, for the purposes of this discussion only, as directly behind and facing the same direction as the lead element of the column). Given that "rear" of the group (as in "...further to its rear") is ambiguous when turning 90-deg into column, I can't see the constraints you list being relevant because all of the moving groups elements will be *in the column* ie direcly behind and facing the same way as the lead element. I fully agree that it "looks wrong" for very deep, 2-element-wide group to turn 90deg into column when the resulting column is much deeper (and thereby extending across a wider battlefield frontage) than the group's original frontage - I just don't see that the wording of the rules prevents it. I can't reconcile your interpretation with the other parts of the rules which say, variously, "It [the leading element of the column] can wheel" and "... other elements move without measuring individually, the nearest elements falling in behind the column, others moving to close up any resulting gaps". No limitations on move distance or direction for following elements AFAICS *if* all the elements end in the column. The only limitations I can divine at this time are where the tail of the newly formed column would project into troop elements, enemy TZs or impassable terrain.
Cheers,
Ivan.
-
I confess to having gotten myself a little confused! :/
The restriction on moving sideways only applies to groups contracting into a column of course - as clearly stated in the rules.
I agree there seems to be no restriction on the depth of a formation that turns into a column.
-
[it] Darn it, Mike - I was typing a lengthy rebuttal to your post about move distances, trig (Pythagoras' Theorem perchance? ;)), the wording of the rules and 'my problem' with understanding you ... and you went and edited it into something entirely reasonable and polite! <big g>
Cheers,
Ivan.
-
Hi
and then it is also possible to turn a block of warband 2 wide and 16 deep 90 degees into a column?
Have also not understood the 3 Pips. I reckon it?s only two.
See attached JPG.
neil
1 extra to wheel a group other than a column
1 extra for ineptitude.
-
"1 extra to wheel a group other than a column"
this is not a "wheel", it?s a "turn 90 into column".
neil